>> thank you to my friend, my colleagues, and my neighbor and to richard blumenthal and to nancy pelosi, who has done so much to encourage us in the house and to senator harry reid for his leadership. i particularly want to thank you, those of you here, the wonderful soto children, to the proud father of lauren, another one of the educators who was cut down on that fateful day and to the action alliance for your leadership, your courage, and efforts. that is why we are here today. i am so honored to represent these people. i am so honored to represent the brave people of newtown. mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, siblings, friends, neighbors -- a community that has endured unimaginable tragedy

and unparalleled loss, and who have responded to that loss, not with anger and hate, which we could well expect, but with courage, with hope, and with love, and i will say, with resolve and resilience. a community of people who have stepped up and advocated for common sense laws to prevent gun violence, to save other communities in this great nation from the pain they are suffering. you have inspired me and encouraged me and you have inspired people all across our country. you have driven change in hartford, where a bipartisan package, a comprehensive gun reform was enacted to prevent gun violence in this country. you are driving change in state capitals across this country, including colorado, with some of

my colleagues here today. here in washington you have encountered inexplicable political cowardice. in the six months since that terrible day when we lost 26 lives in new town connecticut, nearly 4800 fellow americans have been cut down by gun violence. in that same time, the house of representatives has not held a single vote on common-sense efforts to reduce gun violence. not even a vote on enhanced background checks. 46 senators blocked an up or down vote on that same bill in the senate. this is a reform that the families and members of the newtown community have asked our elected leaders to support, a reform supported by more than 90% american people. yet in the face of this shameful obstruction and misinformation,

you, and you, and you have refused to give up. that even though tomorrow we mark if the fat and terrible day, the six-month anniversary of that day, seeing all of you here today -- even if we mark that fateful and terrible day, i am filled with renewed conviction that we must get this job done. no elected leader should be able to look jillian or anyone else across the country in the eye who have lost a loved one to gun violence if they are not willing to step up, without saying to them, we have met our obligation. we have met your call to action. and the call to action of the american people. these families cannot forget and will not give up. neither can we. neither can the congress.

it is time for us to take action on common sense gun laws. it is time to hold an up or down vote in the house and in the senate on enhanced background checks. i want to thank all of you activists and passionate americans here today for everything that you do. i am so honored to stand with you and support you, and as representative for newtown in congress, and more importantly as a mother, i can assure you i will never give up. i will never surrender. as long as it takes, where every texas across this country. us acrossr it takes this country. for those in newtown and nose last week in santa monica who are paying the price for continued political inaction, you have strong supporters and we stand strongly with you. now it is, honor to introduce my friend, colleague, and leader, congressman mike thompson.

>> thank you very much for your leadership and work on this and to all my colleagues behind the, i could not be prouder to serve with them. they are that committed to making sure that we change the laws to do everything we can to prevent gun violence, and thank you to all of you who have shown the courage to stand tall and work on this issue to make sure that we do our job. i wish we were not here. this is an anniversary that i don't think anyone wants to celebrate. we all wish it never would have happened, but the fact of the matter is, it did. it was a terrible, terrible chapter in the history of our country. it was so painful to so many. since that terrible day, a couple of other terrible things

have happened. i believe some already mentioned, nearly 5000 people, 5000 americans have been killed by someone using a gun. 5000. and the other tragic thing is, the house of representatives hasn't done one single thing to try and bring about an end to this type of massacre, of tragedy. that is shameful. we need to do something. the senate took their vote, sadly, as has been pointed out, they did not have the 60 votes necessary. i was as flat as all of you were when that happened. -- i was as sad as all of you were when that happened. but anti pelosi reminded me, she pelosi reminded

me, she said just remember, you promised you would walk through the gates of heck to make sure we had background checks before people could buy guns, and i think you heard that from everybody here who is in this for the long haul. we will not quit and we will not give up. it is our hopes that the house bill will help provide the courage that senators need in order to pass a background check bill. it is a bipartisan bill. i want to personally shout out to peter keane, republican from new york, it is my co-author on that. [applause] we have 182 members of the house of representatives who are co- authors of that bill. [applause] it does something to prevent gun violence. it is pro-second amendment and anti-criminal, anti-terrorist, anti-anyone who is prohibited from buying a gun from getting a gun. and it should be passed. right now, you can buy a gun on

line, you can buy a gun at a gun show, and you can be a criminal, a terrorist, a spousal abuser, and you can still buy that gun, because there is no background checks for purchases of that type. this bill would change that. doesn't do everything. it will not solve all the problems, but it is the best step forward. no one can be against criminals getting guns, against terrorists getting guns, or against the dangerously mentally ill getting done, and at the same time be against background checks. it is our first line of defense, and we should be doing everything we can to strengthen that first line of defense. so i look forward to the day in the not too distant future when president obama signs that bill into law. [applause]

is peter king here? he's probably still in the intelligence briefing, but i appreciate the fact that his sponsorship is on that bill. >> if i just make acknowledge, ron barber who is here was a victim himself, congressman ron barber. [applause] congressman elijah cummings, a senior democrat on the government reform committee has championed these issues as well. [applause] congressman joe courtney had to go back to committee, but i wanted to acknowledge that he was here, congressman joe courtney of connecticut, and congresswoman sheila jackson lee was here as well. and this one and to acknowledge the other cast members who were here. >> i have been told we are going to take some questions.

happy to do so. >> if you would be good enough to identify who you are so everybody knows. >> when you said you would not accept a watered-down version of the background check bill, what will you not let go? >> i will not accept a watered- down version of the bill. >> does that mean you will not let any kind of record keeping revision bill go? >> at this stage i got nothing. we have had some discussions. they have been helpful, but they have not borne fruit, as i said before. >> you have any indication that

the moderates who voted no last time will vote yes this time? >> all of you kind of revel in this, we have 90% of the democratic vote. we lost four out of 55, a pretty good deal. so focused on the republicans. we have a couple local possibilities in the democrats, but focus on the republicans. congressman barber -- he has this beautiful dimple on his face, but it is from a gunshot. background checks are important. i am not going to have some watered-down version just to say we got it done. >> what are you waiting for, what has to be in place? >> we have to have the 60 votes.

>> are there any signs that republicans are starting to come over on this? >> no. >> would you say there is at least one republican who is a yes privately right now? >> we have been doing well with more than one republican couple. >> do you believe that mayor bloomberg's efforts have been helpful or not helpful in going after the democrats who voted against this bill? >> we have been friends for some time, and i remind him just as i reminded everyone here, to have republicans controlled the senate is a sure sign we will never ever get anything done. mayor bloomberg is a man of

passion. he is fixated on this and i admire him for doing that. he is going to make some decisions on this. i gave my input. that is where raw with mayor bloomberg. he is kind of a free spirit, and a very rich one. [laughter] >> the question is whether he should try to educate people on this bill. he is doing that and we'll do more of it. >> i would hope that while there is talk about seeing people at the polls, that we could do something much sooner than that. and that a lot of the energy that is out there is really to persuade people who are in office now so that the issue can be served that we can pass legislation to make the people safer, starting now, rather than waiting until after an election.

the ballot box has consequences, there is no question people will speak. our votes are our forces there. hopefully the energy of everyone focus now on having people, elected officials see the strength of support in their own district and state. president lincoln said public sentiment is everything. the public is there, 90% of the public, and almost impossible figure of agreement. to translate that sentiment into public policy is what we want to do. we always want to shorten the time between what is inconceivable to the gun lobby but inevitable to us, shorten the distance. we would like to do that now and not wait for the election. the focus is on the senate with the leadership of mike thompson. we have 183 co-sponsors.

many more say they will vote for the bill even if they don't co- sponsor it early on. we want that to be the message to the senate, if you have the courage to take the boat, it will go someplace. -- the vote, it will go someplace. there is a life in the house. i think it is important to focus on getting as many supporters in the house on the bill so that the senators don't think they are taking a political risk, which they should do anyway, for a bill that is not going to see like in the house. hopefully many of you will focus your attention on the house as well because we are making great progress there as well. [applause] >> members of the house marked the six-month anniversary of the newtown shooting. this is half an hour.

are broken, but our spirit is not. that is the sandy tomorrow marks six months since the tragedy in newtown, a tragedy seared into the minds of every person across america. indeed many, millions across the world. like the anniversaries of the shooting in tucson and arizona and oak creek, and so many other communities, tomorrow arks a anniversary of shock, uncertainty, violence, horror. tomorrow marks another solemn reminder of the persistent plague of gun violence in our society, and the ongoing challenge to end it. over the past six months, many wos have been spoken to offer our love and support to the community of newtn and to the

students and teachers of sandy hook. from the start we have known that words of comfort would never be enough. it would b no substitute for the action that we must take, that would be a truly fitting memorial to the 20 children and six teachers and administrators lost that day. yesterday we had visits from the families, brought pictures of their loved ones who were lost. david gordon, lauren, ben, enjamin wheeler, mary, dylan heartbreaking photos of these children and family members who were lost. i don't know how much more note vation we need than to see --

motivation we need than to see the tears in oiler eyes and the resolve in their voices to use their grief as a source of strength to help save other people. that would start with a vote on bipartisan legislation by congressman mike thompson, congressman peter king, and 180 sponsors to expand and strengthen our background checks. no one knows better than the people of newtown, men, women, mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters who lost their loved ones on december 14, 2012. since that dark day, the families of newtown and their supporters have turned their sorrow into strength, pain into perseverance unspeakable loss into unmatched courage and determination to carry on. yesterday these mothersnd fathers met with both republican and democratic leaders, yet they had come with

no partisan agenda. they come as americans who wish to spare their fellow parents and family members the mourning, fear, and terror they felt six months ago. their message is clear, honor the memories of the little children, of these educators by helping to ensure no other family is forced to endure such an unimaginable tragedy. it had been unimaginable. now we have seen it. now our task is plain. we must restore confidence in the safety of our communities by taking clear, effective steps to prevent gun violence in our schools, homes, and neighborhoods. i just read the names and showed the pictures of a few, of a few of the people who -- whose lives were lost that day. for them and for others and lives we want to save, again i mention the bipartisan

thompson-king, king-thompson legislation. that means that using this anniversary certainly to memorialize the victims of newtown, but also answer the call of their families to give gun violence prevention legislation a vote in the congress of the united states. six months ago in newtown, a lone gunman took the lives of 26 americans. we all know that. emblazoned in our minds and souls. since then nearly 5,000 more americans have fallen victim to gun violence. 5,000, mr. speaker. if now in congress we must summon the courage to act. we must take inspiration from the courage of the newtown families, from the courage it has taken to turn their grief into action. we must heed the loving words of the sandy hook promise, our hearts are broken. our spirit is not.

as we mark this anniversary, we must uphold our most basic responsibility. the oath of office, to protect and defend, protect and defend the constitution and to protect and defend the people of the united states. mr. speaker, i thank our colleague, congresswoman esty, and our colleague, congressman mike thompson, for their leadership in bringing us together this morning so that we cannot only remember but that we can have the courage to act. with that i yield. the speaker pro mpore: the chair recognizethe gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, for five minutes. mr. yer: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: i rise to join the eader t i rise to join congresswoman esty and congressman thompson in

recognizing this sad anniversary. mrspeaker, it is with sadness that we mark the six-month anniversary, tomorrow, of the tragic shooting at sandy hook elementary school in newtown. on that day as has been repeated and must be remembered, americans were united in shock and grief at the senseless murder by a crazed gunman of 26 innocent people. 20 innocent first graders and six courageous schl staff members who took -- tried to protect them and help save the lives of others. since that day approximately 4,500, the leader mentioned 5,000, but a figure in excess of 4,500 americans have died as a result of gun violence, according to the newtown action

alliance. mr. speaker, this is not just a tragedy. it is a epidemi one that congress has a moral responsibility to address. when nine out of 10 americans support stricter background checks to keep dangerous guns out of the hands of criminals, and those with mental illne, there is no reason why congress shouldn't be able to take swift and decisive action to enact tougher protections. i was deeply disappointed, mr. speaker, that the senate failed to move forward with legislation to protect americans from gun violence by enacting effective background checks that safeguard the constitutional rights of responsible owners and safeguard americans. the american people are demanding action, and the house now has a chance to succeed

where the senate failed. demonstrating that commonsense proposals to reduce gun violence can indeed command bipartisan support. democratic representative mike thompson of california, who chairs the house democratic task force on gun violence, and my friend, republican representative peter king of new york, have joined together to introduce legislation in this chamber similar to that which was blocked in the senate. there is not a single provision in their bill that should be worrisome to those concerned about our long-standing tradition of protecting second amendment rights. not a single provision. it will help us keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous and mentally unstable individuals likely to do harm to others or themselves. will they keep all of us safe

all the time? it will not. we know that. it that is the tragic fact of life. but will it help? it will. and if we can help, should we? and the answer is an emphatic yes. this proposal contains commonsense proposals that i stronglyupport and that most americans have supported as well. congress has the opportunity to get this right by considering the thompson-king legislation in the house and senate, and get to the senate for consideration. i congratulate congresswoman esty in particular, as well as congressman thompson, for their leadership and efforts in this regard. after the backlash, many senators received for opposing expanded background checks, i suspect that a number may be ready to reconsider. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to come together as representative thompson and king have done to advance this

bipartisan solution to this pressing challenge facing our nation, not just for congress, but every american. it should not take, it must not take another tragedy such as newtown for us to t. we have a responsibility to keep our neighborhoods and our schools safe, and i urge speaker boehner and majority leader cantor to allow this bill to come to the floor for a vote. the speaker often says he wants to allow the house to work its will. that's why the people of newtown sent congresswoman esty to congress. that's why the people of my district and every district represented in this house, people sent from -- them here to vote on policies. policies to make their country better.

policies to make their country more safe. the memories of those two, the memories of those teachers, the memories of those 26, yes, the memories of those 4,500 plus who since the newtown tragedy ha lost their lives to gun violence, their memory, mr. speaker, demands and deserves action by their representatives. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. esty, for five minutes. ms. esty: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. esty: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, six months ago tomorrow the town of newtown experienced unimaginable tragedy and unparalleled loss.

that loss, the painful loss of sons and daughters, spouses, siblings, and friends is still very raw and will always run very deep for the people of newtown. and yet in the face of that unimaginable tragedy, on that day and on the days since, this small community that has been through so much has inspired our nati with tremendous courage and resilience. americans have been insred by the six brave educators who gave their very lives to defend their -- andprotect their students. americans have been inspired by the brave first responders who arrived on the scene to save others and live with the trauma of what they saw that day. americans have been inspired by the sandy hook families who, despite living with t pain that one can only begin to imagine, have responded to loss not with anger or hate, but

with unbelievable love, strength, and courage. they have taken their call to action to hartford where a comprehensive set of commonsense gun laws passed with bipartisan support. they have taken the call to action to state capitals around this country, and they have taken that call to action here in washington. but here they faced inexplicable political cowardess, in the six months since that terrible day, since we lost 26 precious lives in new town, nearly 4,800 mernts have also lost their lives to gun violence. during that same time this house has not held a single vote on commonsense gun reform to reduce and prevent gun violence. not even enhanced criminal background checks. 46 senators brought an up or down vote on enhanced background checks. this is a reform that the

families and members of the newtown community have asked our elected leaders to support. it is a reform supported by over 90% of the american people , and it is shameful that we have not yet had a chance to vote. and yet in spite of that obstruction and misinformation, these families and this community have refused to give up. on tuesday, i was honored to again meet with several of the newtown families as they traveled here to continue to lead the push for commonsense honored that 'm several members that have community of the newtown alliance are with us here in the gallery today. in meeting with the families i was given pictures of their loved ones that they have been handing out to elected officials from across the country. this photo of school psychologist mary sherlock re responders equippe

this photo on this card -- sorry -- we need to make sure with dylan card hochuli.ockley. stand up for change. here is picture of dylan hockley. the picture of 6-year-old benjamin wheeler asks, what is worth doing? mr. speaker, these words, these faces, these lives mark the call action for newtown. they mark the call to action in hartford and aurora, chicago and santa monica and every community torn apart by gun violence. and the sad truth is that this congress has not met this call to action. this congress has not shown the

courage to pass commonsense gun reforms. but the good news is that it is not too late for this congress to do better. and now is the time. we must do it for mary. we must do better for dylan. we must do better for benjamin and for charlotte, for daniel and olivia, for joe is he a phone, for anna and for madeline, for kathryn and chase and jesse, for james, for grace and for emily. for jack, for noah and for caroline, for jessica, r allison, for rhel, dawn and ann marie, for lren and victoria. we can and we must do better. these families cannot forget and will not give up. neither can we. the speaopmrq:dtegt-n4 my remarks. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection. mr. larson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to associate myself with the remark of my dear colleague from connecticut, elizabeth esty, who's done such a remarkable job in representing that district and especially the families of newtown, connecticut, in the aftermath of this horrific tragedy. now, mr. speaker, the time for us to act is long overdue. the hard truth for the united states congress is, as congressman mike thompson pointed out, that since newtown 5,000 americans have lost their lives at the point of a gun. 5,000 americans since newtown.

the uted states congress has the responsibility to act and do its conitutionally get this esire to bill passed. now, whether you believe this is the correct course of action or not, as the president said in his state of the union message, you still have a responsibility to vote. this is a democracy. every day that we delay a vote on this bipartisan bill, .ongress is complicit ngress is complicit in the

deaths of those american action as o wait for more s sits by as 5,000 of a s die at the point gun. i commend the families of ewtown and the whole world was heartened. mark barredin stepped out into the rowsarden with the president of the united states and reiterated a phrase that has held them all together that their hearts are broken along with those of the entire world as we looked on as this tragedy, but their spirit is not and they are undaunted in their determination, driven by the memories of those teachers

nd administrators and students who died so tragically. they -- they, both students and teachers were willing to stand in the way of violence, and the united states congress can't do its constitutionally responsibili and stand up and vote? all of us watched as the united states senate, with filies in the gallery, voting on background checks that 91% of the american people agree with voted it down. no teacher in america could explain the next day how the . te was 54-46 and it lost

citizens all across this country take heed. do not give up. contin to fight this fight. fight what's wrong with congress, about not taking votes when they should and about a system in the senate where a majority prevails and a vote goes down because of the cloture rule, an arbitrary rule in the united states senate. the outrage has got to start outside of this building because here in this building, people remain complicit and the acts will only continue toake place if congress do not take action. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yieldsack the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona, mr. barber, for five minutes. mr. barber: thank you, mr. speaker. tomorrowe observe the sixth month anniversary of the

senseless and tragic murders at sandy hook elementary school. we will never forget what happened in newtown, connecticut, on december 14, 2012, just as we'll never forget what happened in tucson, in oak creek, virginia tech, portland, milwaukee and columbine. and as we remember the precious lives lost, we must also renew our determination to work together to make sure that such a tragedy never happens again. as a survivor of the tucson shooti that took place on anuary 8, 2011, as the grandfather of children the same age as those who were slaughtered in newtown, and as a member of congress, i'm committed to taking the reasonable action to make sure that we prevent future deaths

and injuries from such mass shootings. after the awful shooting an deaths in newtown, the sunday following i was reading a newspaper about the tragedy and i saw a photograph of one of the children that was killed and as i looked at that photograph of this little 6-year-old girl looking back at me from that page with my granddaughter the same age, i have to tell you that i sobbed along with my wife. i think no grandparent and no parent in this country could have had any other reaction. we must take action here to make sure these mass shootings never occur again. while there is no single answer to preventing mass shootings, we do know some things. we know, for example, that untreated or undiagnosed serious mental illness has been a factor in manof these

tragedies. it's important to note as we say this that more than 95% of people with a mental illness never will commit a violent act. they're far more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators. the young man who killed six people in tucson and wounded 13 of us had displayed symptoms of mental illness for many, many months before the tragedy, and he never received either diagnosis or treatment. he ended up geing a diagnosis and treatment when he was imprisoned. i believe this and other mass shootings could have bee averted if the public was more aware of the indications and symptoms of mental illness and how to get help. we must do more to reduce the stigma of surrounding mental illness. we must invest in the early identification of mental illness and treatment programs. 60% of people living in this country with mental illness are

not receiving the care they need. we must do better. it is clear we must expand mental health services and awaress for 100% of the individuals with mental illness in the country. that's one of the reasons i introduced the mental health first aid act earlier this year with strong bipartisan support. this legislation would provide aining to help first responders, educators, students, the general public how to identify and respond to signs of mental illness. this is just but one of many actions. you've heard of -- from other speakers before me today. there are many things we can and must do but congress must act. i call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand with me and the families of wtown and of tucson and all the other places where there have been mass tragedies, shooting tragedies in the last two years and take action. we must act. we must do it now. the families of newtown, oak creek, aurora, tucson and

across this nation are waiting for our answer. will we answer? >> in a few moments, a larry clinton on her role -- hillary clinton in her role at the ,linton foundation. after that members of the house and senate intelligence committee speak with reporters about closed briefings they had with that national security agency. our coverage of the faith and freedom coalition continues on c-span 3 at 9 a.m.. speakers are scheduled to include jeb bush, representative paul ryan, allen west, and representative mark

sanford. and commercergy committee holds a hearing on prescription drug abuse. former secretary of state hillary clinton says in her role at the clinton foundation, she focuses on women, children, and job creation. she spoke in chicago and was introduced by former president bill clinton. this is half an hour. >> this last six months for our foundation has been an interesting time. for the last couple of years, chelsea has been spending half her time on the foundation works. she just got back from asia visiting our projects in malaysia and cambodia and visiting the efforts of procter & gamble in myanmar, where our foundation is also slated to do

a lot of work. i am very grateful to her for helping, put all of our forces in one place. i was thrilled when the third member of our tiny family said she wanted to come into the foundation and resume her work. i learned all about in ngo work from hillary. when we were going out, she was already active in many kinds of nongovernmental activities. when i was governor of arkansas, oath in our state, america, and around the world. she had been doing this a long time and i am really glad that she is going to come into the foundation with her own priorities and projects. since they bear a real impact on where we go over the long run

and in the short run in this country, i would depart from our normal rules that nobody gets to give a speech and let her give a fairly brief outline to you about what she will be doing in the clinton foundation, which has been renamed with hillary and chelsea as part of it. i can see this coming as i move, my job will be to find people who know what they are doing, which i am very happy to do. i ask you to join me in welcoming in her first -- she has been that many meetings in the past, but never as a principal in the clinton foundation, former senator and secretary of state, hillary rodham clinton. [applause]

>> thank you. thank you so much. [applause] good morning. thank you. it is such a pleasure to be here in chicago participating as a private citizen, as a cohost of cgi and a representative of what we are officially renaming the bill, hillary, and chelsea clinton foundation. [applause]

i am thrilled to fully join this remarkable organization that bill started a dozen years ago and to call it my home for the work i will be doing, some of which i will outline today and also we will have an exciting announcement tomorrow as well. i listened to my friend reference the black hawk games. my father and brothers and i were great fans. three overtimes? i remembering listening to the the games on the radio will stop -- radio. three overtimes? really? i can imagine there is a sense of euphoria as well as exhaustion affecting many of our chicago participants today.

i hardly endorse the mayors call to go. i want to take a moment of personal privilege to the knowledge -- acknowledge the imaginative visionary work that bill has done with the foundation. i personally believe he has given philanthropy and problem solving a new paradigm and we have seen already this morning starting with the reports of the commitments following with the mayors what that means, to really look at solving problems through partnership and collaboration. i am very proud of what he has accomplished. i am very proud mother because chelsea's role is expanding and this is truly a labor of love for our entire family.

in just a few short years, she has helped the foundation widen our reach to a whole new generation of young people through cgi university held at washington university in st. louis. we are bringing together or than 1000 innovative students from around the world to work on tough challenges, many of them are inventing products, creating new approaches to problem solving and chelsea has been our leader. she has also begun the foundations day of action program to organize community service campaigns across the country as well is working on the range of our health initiatives from childhood obesity to other health disparities. i was thrilled when she was in myanmar delivering the 6 billionth leader of clean water as part of the cgi -- liter of

clean water. [applause] we are very excited to have this partnership a train the three of us. this is my first time at cgi in america. i was fortunate to attend the annual meeting in new york speaking on behalf of the administration. i want to thank the terrific staff and all of the sponsors and a longtime friend who was -- whose exciting commitment you just heard.

people have really really made this conference a destination. it is not surprising that it would be held in chicago, since the conference itself began as an effort to put our heads together about renewal in america and chicago has long taken its inspiration as the rising phoenix. that is absolutely appropriate. as someone who was born in the city and has spent so many wonderful years growing up here and coming back and visiting, it is exciting to see what it looks like, what it is doing. i appreciated the mayor telling us about all of the other tasks that are being undertaken to ensure that chicago is a global destination and a competitive city across the world.

over the years, there have been more than 2600 concrete commitments to action at cgi. i travel the world quite extensively the last four years and one of the lessons i took away is that this model of partnership and commitment is at the heart of what we need to do to meet the challenges of the 21st century. the world is increasingly interdependent and interconnected, all the problems that we face from climate change to financial contagion to nuclear proliferation are too complex and cross cutting for anyone government or for governments to solve alone. what i call smart power in my time at the state department included reaching out to tap the energy and the experience and

expertise of the civil society, academia, the private sector, anyone who was working to solve problems and wanted to collaborate with others who felt the same way. i even named a special representative for global partnerships because i wanted to encourage our diplomats and development experts to view public-private partnerships as one of their most important problem-solving tools. today, it is even more in portland that we do that here at home -- important that we do that here at home and around the world to unleash the talents of the american people and catalyze the investments that we need. we understand that you cannot look to government to solve all of our problems, you cannot trust the market, we need those partnerships that bring public servants and private leaders

together. that is what you will see here at cgi america. we have a lot of work ahead of us and i am excited to be putting my efforts into it. i wanted to briefly describe to you what i am going to do in my new role at the foundation. certainly, i will be focused on applying lessons learned from around the world and building new partnerships across our entire portfolio, but particularly in three broad areas that have been close to my heart my entire adult life. early childhood development, opportunities for women and girls, and economic development that creates jobs and gives more people in more places the chance to live up to their own god- given potential. i will start with early

childhood development and i want to begin by thanking the foundation for leading the way on this critical issue. it may surprise some that early childhood development was adopted as an issue at the very first cgi america gathering. people do not necessarily equate babies and toddlers and preschoolers with competitiveness. obviously, healthy kids and loving families need no economic justification, that is what everyone should want and work for, but ask yourself, if we do not apply what we know to helping prepare our kids to the best of their abilities, to take their roles in our country and the world, are we really going to be able to maintain the american journeyman?

-- american dream? are we really going to be able to provide that upward mobility that has been the hallmark of america's journey? do not take my word for it, ask yourself this. why is it that china is committed to providing 70% of its children with three years of preschool by 2020? why did the united kingdom decide in the late 1990s to invest in universal free preschool, community-based children's centers and encourage businesses to provide workplace flexibility for parents? in the united states, only half of our children receive early childhood education, some of it very honestly is not of high quality. very few parents, whether they are in a two parent family or a single-parent family, have the kind of flexibility that enables them to do the most important

job in their life, parent while doing their job, ringing him the -- bringing home the income that keeps her family going. -- bringing home the income that keeps their family going. there are huge economic implications and how our kids are prepared. the new brain research that bill was referring to tells us that what happens in the first five years of life has a dramatic effect on later development. 700 new neural connections are formed every second, laying the foundation for learning, behavior, health, and all of the other things we need to grow up as productive adults. right year in chicago, the nobel prize-winning economist has pioneered research into the broad benefits to our society

and our economy from early childhood development. he has proven time and time again and he will tell any group willing to listen that every dollar we invest can yield savings of more than seven dollars down the road by improving school achievement and graduation rates while reducing problems like teen pregnancy and crime. some of the answer does lie with government. like president obama's proposal to expand access to high-quality preschool. but there is also a responsibility that has to be met by parents and families, businesses and communities who are at the center of this challenge. i want to applaud the commitment progress and the ways he is going to be modeling, along with

goldman sachs and other partners, new ways to finance early education for some of our most vulnerable children. the so-called social impact bonds can be an important innovation for the early learning community and the broader impact investing community. i also want to recognize the commitment by the david and laura maras foundation and its partners to create networks of child care and early learning providers that will pool resources, share best practices, and create economies to lower costs and improve quality. from my early days at the children's defense fund working on behalf of special-needs children who were being denied access to education, to bringing a program from israel to arkansas to give parents support

and guidance, to hosting the first ever white house conference on early development and learning to working and this has been a core cause of my life and it will now be a growing priority at the clinton foundation building on the work that we are already doing. [applause] committed to rigorous measurements and evaluation. here in chicago, we will be engaging with the cgi early childhood working group and with leaders and advocates who are here, including sarah tucker and tomorrow, the foundation will launch a major new partnership in collaboration with the scientific advocacy communities,

i cannot give you the details today, but our goal is to help parents, teachers, businesses learn from it and apply the latest brain research to take meaningful and manageable steps to improve the lives of their kids in the first five years. some of it sounds so simple, you ask, why would we be even talking about it? encourage parents to spend time reading and talking with their children, especially their infants? we know what stimulates cognitive development. how do we make sure parents know that it is an absolutely free way of helping to prepare their children for school? how do we make sure pregnant women, particularly poor women, understand the nutrients they should take to support their own and their babies health? how do we inspire more businesses to ease the work related burdens parents of young

children? i look forward to talking and working with many of you. those of you already in the early childhood development community, but also expanding this conversation to the private sector, to government officials, to everyone who connects this direct line between what happens in those early months and years to whether or not we will maintain our standard of living as a nation. secondly, it will not surprise you that i want to work to create your opportunities for women and girls. i made this the focus of american foreign policy because it is not only the right thing

to do, it is the great business of this century and it is also something that will enhance our competitiveness. research shows that when women participate -- [applause] when women participate in the economy, everyone benefits. they should also be a no- brainer. when women participate in peacemaking and peacekeeping, we are safer and more secure. when women participate in politics, the effects ripple out across society. [applause] american women went from holding the 37 of all jobs 40 years ago to 48% today. the productivity gains attributed to this increase account for more than $3.5 trillion in gdp growth over the

last four decades. yet, when the economist magazine recently published a glass ceiling index ranking countries based on factors, the united states does not even -- is not even in the top 10. why? some of the factors they looked at, women still hold less than 17% of seats on corporate boards. in norway, it is more than 40%. research are the world bank and the international monetary fund show that eliminating barriers to women's participation in the economy boosts productivity and gdp. i think that is growth we cannot afford to ignore. other countries are taking note. the prime minister of japan said

he wanted to put women at the heart of his economic agenda to expand access to affordable childcare and parental leave and for businesses to appoint at least one woman executive. he said women are japan's most underused resource. he is right. women are the world's most underused resource. i will continue championing the rights and opportunities of women around the world, but i do not want to forget women and girls here at home. making equal pay a reality, expanded medical leave benefits, encouraging women and girls to pursue careers in stem. we heard a great presentation from the manufacturing community today to include productivity. we need more efforts like the cgi commitment by capital one to

create a training program for women veterans. veterans. that is a wonderful idea. [applause] let me thank all of our cgi america partners, all of our cgi partners. i look forward to working with you. that brings me to the third area of my passion, which is very related. economic development that creates good jobs and opportunities for young people, who face an unemployment rate doubled the national average and for all of those left behind by our fast-changing economy. there are important debates to be had about how government policies can best stimulate growth and increase economic and social mobility. this cannot just be a conversation about washington. we all need to do our part, and that is why the u.s. conference of mayors work on infrastructure

is so important and such a good example. we have to prove to ourselves as well as the rest of the world that are public and private sectors can work together to find common ground for the common good. the rest of the world that are public and private sectors can work together to find common ground for the common good. smart investments in infrastructure are important and over the next two days, we will be highlighting dozens of the commitments and partnerships to improve our countries competitiveness from boosting energy efficiency to expanding workforce training to supporting small businesses. we will hear from practitioners like a school superintendent from texas who started a door- to-door counseling for young people in his district who have dropped out and the new vocational training program to prepare students for good jobs or the mayor of rockford,

illinois, working with local businesses launching manufacturing co-ops that offer opportunities for residents of public housing and others who often find every door closed. the head of the american federation of teachers who has brought together 100 partners from government, business, labor, foundations to revitalize a remote county in west virginia where more than one third of the residents live in poverty, two thirds of the homes are substandard, and only half the residents have a high school degree. this is not limited to one county in west virginia. into too many places in our own country, community institutions are crumbling, subject -- social indicators are cratering and jobs are coming apart and communities face the consequences. you probably have seen the life expectancy, longevity for american women has dropped among

women without high school education. digging into the data, researchers have concluded her were two main reasons. smoking and the lack of a job. the lack of connectivity, the lack of meaning, the lack of purpose. for both young men and young women, we have to tackle these problems. whether it is in west virginia or anywhere else, the problems did not start with the latest recession. there is no single investment or program that will turn things around immediately. schools, job, public health, infrastructure are all connected. that is what cgi america is designed to do as well.

to bring together the best ideas wherever they come from, to find the most innovative solutions, most committed partners, to take on our biggest challenges in integrated collaborative way. after visiting 112 nations over four years, i am still jet lagged -- [applause] talking with people from every walk of life, i take away three basic lessons. i looked at all of the international polling data to try to figure out what people in the world really wanted because they have lives are filled with stories. all the research made the same point. what people wanted was a good job. it did not matter where they lived, it did not matter their race or religion, they wanted a

good job. governments and business have not been able to do that in many places in the world today. our country's greatest advantage lies in the values that remain at the heart of the american experiment, freedom, equality, opportunity. the idea that if you work hard and play by the rules, you will prosper, you will be able to make a better life for yourself and your family. we cannot afford ever to lose that core belief. i learned that lesson not far from here growing up in park ridge. one of my earliest memories is helping my father in his small fabric renting business in chicago lifting the silkscreen, holding the paint squeegee.

a lot has changed since then. technology and globalization are remaking our economy and society, but our values inspire the world and they still can guide our way forward. finally, what this meeting is about and what i think we have to be about is working together overcoming the lines that divide us, whether it is partisan, cultural, geographic, building on what we know works, we can take on any challenge we confront. i am excited to be here emma to be one of your new partners. thank you for participating in cgi america. you really are part of the solution. thank you. [applause]

>> fbi director robert mueller testified on capitol hill. had is a little of what he to say about how the nsa's title date -- data selection program might have prevented the 9/11 plot. you can see the entire hearing online at c-span.org. to whatt to go back occurred on 9/11. it has some bearing on this. before 9/11, there was an individual who came to be one of the principal hijackers. he was being tracked by the intelligence agencies in the far east. they lost track of him. at the same time, intelligence

agencies had identified an al qaeda safe house in yemen. that safestood that house had a telephone number, but they could not know who was calling into that particular safe house. we came to find out afterwards that the person who had called into that safe house was this individual, who was in the united states in san diego. if we had had this program in place at the time, we would've been able to identify that particular telephone number in san diego. ask the indulgence just to finish. it is a critical point as to why we have this program and how important it is. if we had the telephone number from yemen, we would've matched it up to that telephone number in san diego, that further legal processes, identify that gentleman, and one last point -- the 9/11 commission itself indicated that investigations or interrogations of that

individual once he was identified would have yielded evidence of connections to other participants in 9/11 plots. the simple fact of their detention to have derailed the plan in any case. the opportunity was not there. if we had this program, that opportunity would have been there. >> the c-span video library has reached a milestone. and sits online launch in 2007, there are now more than 200,000 hours of original c-span programming, public affairs, politics, history, and nonfiction books. a public service created by private industry. america's cable companies. now a bipartisan policy center discussion on immigration policy and with former republican governors jeb bush of florida and haley barbour of mississippi. this is an hour. >> good morning.

welcome to the bipartisan policy center. i am the director immigration policy here. i would like to thank you all for coming today. we are very excited to have our two very distinguished guests, governors haley barbour and jeb bush to talk about immigration impactsstate and local of immigration reform, republican politics, what ever you want to talk to them about. we wereof you know, founded years ago as a place for rigorous analysis, reasoned negotiations, and respectful dialogue. wheree multiple projects we try to combine politically balanced policymaking with strong, proactive advocacy and outreach. in february, he launched the immigration task force which is cochaired by governor haley barbour, former governor rendell, former secretary of state anneliese rice, and former

secretary of hud henry cisneros. we hope to work through many issues that still need to be resolved in this large an ongoing debate. we also hope to host many more of these events like this one to foster conversation among key advocacy groups, policymakers, academics, and hopefully congressional members on the toughest issues of immigration reform. we look forward to receiving many insights from the governors today from their unique perspectives on this issue. i will not turn it over to kathleen coke, former cnn correspondent and author -- and author of "rising from katrina." thank you for being here. >[applause] >> thank you for joining us here today. i know you hear this frequently at events -- the guests need no introduction.

it is really true, so i will keep the introduction brief grid in your folders, that these men's bios. served aseb bush governor of the state of florida from 1998-2007. he is co-author of the new book "immigration wars." he is the son of a president, whether the president, and many of his supporters leave he could indeed hold that office himself someday. i would also like to introduce the gentleman next to me who is a very -- very handy to have at the helm interstate ever encounters the worst natural disaster in u.s. history. had been governor for just one year. he took office in 2004. he held office as the 67th governor of mississippi until 2012. before that, he was chairman of the republican national committee in 1993-1997.

now he's busy back doing what he does best, as a lobbyist, now heading up the immigration reform organization here at bpc. thank you for joining us. i would like to go to them each for a very brief opening statement in opening remarks. governor bush? >> thank you for letting me come. we will talk about the state and local aspects of immigration reform, but i want to step -- set the stage in a broader way about why immigration -- embracing our immigrant heritage is important for renewing america's greatness. i think our country is the only developed country, mature country that could grow at 3.5% per year for the next decade. we have abundant resources. we have great talent. we have the ability to rebuild our demographic pyramid. right now, that has eroded

dramatically as declining fertility rates, we are getting older, all the societal changes that are taking place that make it imperative for us to have immigration reform as a key element of an economic strategy for sustained growth. this is a huge opportunity. i do not view immigration is a problem. i view it as embracing an enormous opportunity for us to fulfill our potential as a nation. -- it is within our grasp to do it now. i think delay would be inappropriate because tepid growth, the new normal economic growth growth in our country, will not allow us to deal with the pressing problems that we face. we will be overwhelmed by our problems if we do not grow economically, and there are other elements of economic rough, but without immigration, i do not see how we could do it. >> thanks, jeb. kathleen asked us to talk for about three minutes. i can say hello in three

minutes. [laughter] i will limit my subject matter and try to stay within the bounds. his points are the kinds of things that have made me very interested in this. america is in the global battle for capital and labor. if we are going to grow the economy of the united states at the rates that he talked about, the historical rates of all of our lifetimes, then we've got to have more labor. we not only have to have more like science,abor technology, engineering, and toh -- that is critical increase the number of hib toas, and at the same time start doing a better job of raising american kids to get masters and phd's in engineering and physics.

but in the short term and midterm, a lot of this labor has to come from other countries grid we are so blessed -- countries. we are so blessed that our university system is a magnet for the best students in the world. a phd ind gets engineering from mississippi state, we ought to staple a green card to his diploma because if not, he will go home mumbai and- to higher 800 people. -- and hire 800 people. and i think is obvious almost universally accepted and agreed upon, but we also have --er a central labor essential labor that is not phd's, when we have california, the biggest agricultural state in california, with more than half the farm labor that is here illegally. are here on the special

theyultural visas because are cumbersome, unwieldy, bad policy. focus on the top and. -- top end. if we are going to grow our economy at the rate that we can, we have to remember that gdp growth is simply a nativity multiplied by the number -- productivity multiplied by the number of workers. , but ift a math major the number of workers stays the same as it has stayed under this it is very hard to get gdp go up at the rate that will sustain for our children and grandchildren a lifestyle which we enjoy in which we can continue, particularly with the enter -- with the energy changes in our

economy. for thesed on this right policy for our economy, which is to have real, comprehensive immigration reform. >> thank you very much. >> mumbai and alabama. i never heard it say that way. i like that. >> before we talk about the what, i would like to talk about the why. as we look at the measure moving to the senate on immigration reform and potentially will make it to the house, is it not true -- do you believe that they would be considering immigration reform right now if it were not for what happened in the fall, if mitt romney had not secured just 27% of the hispanic vote? tanking withs not one of the fastest growing minority groups in the country? >> i personally think we need to do immigration for good

policy reasons. >> but we are doing it now because of politics. >> frankly we are doing it now because obama did not do it the first year he was president wiki said he was going to. this is not -- like he said he was going to. this is not about a partisan argument. publicans need to be for this because it is good policy. democrats need to be good for the state -- before this because it is good policy. it could've come up in the last four years, and it did not. alec has come up. i think we'll see a lot of bipartisan support. the reason is not good politics. reagan used to say at the end of the day good policy is good politics. if you have good policy, you do what is right, you get good results. the new get good results, you get reelected. that is the reason we ought to be doing it. >> why are we doing it? >> i would say both parties feel

toeed for political reasons forge a consensus on good policy. there's nothing wrong with that. republicans -- i would say the canary in the coal mine politically would be asian- americans -- if you were a pollster from gallup, you do not have a lot of knowledge of american politics but enough, and you were told, here is a group that has higher families, more entrepreneurial, higher than average incomes, higher college graduation rates, and they support president obama's , that would be3 surprising. asian-americans are actually the canary in the coal mine i believe for republicans. we have lost connectivity to emerging voters not because of our policies so much but because we are not engaged in

issues of importance to them. i think we pay a price. democrats on the other hand cannot keep going back to the well, promising to doing things and never even trying. think both parties are focused on this great when you have these windows opportunity, you really need to engage. i'm proud of the fact that this is one little part of the policy structural have big problems, there are a lot of things that need to get done -- but here is a place where the process seems to be working, and we should not be critical of that. we should be celebrating the fact that our democracy can work when people build confidence, build faith, do not think that there is an effort to try to outdo one another, and forge a consensus which is being done. i am actually very pleased that thegang of eight -- in house, somewhere efforts -- they are on their way. it leads me to believe that there's a pretty good chance there will be an immigration law

passed that will allow us to take advantage the strengths we have as an immigrant nation. >> governor bush, i know as an author what it is like when you write a book and then you're surprised by the reaction sometimes you get from people when your book comes out. ,hen you go, --, in hindsight i wish i had written something differently. i had described my position differently good when looking at the reaction to your book, is there anything you would change, and are you at all surprised by the reaction? >> i'm not surprised. i do think that everything is viewed from a political lens. rather than from a policy point of view. people that were critical of my book had not read it. that they would actually understand the substance of the proposition before they were critical. i'm not surprised by it.

we are living in a hyper partisan, hyper political world. the book we wrote, which we wrote last year, has a set of recommendations that is eerily similar to what is being discussed in the senate and house. i feel pretty good about that. it is called "immigration wars." you can probably get it at a deep discount on amazon. interesting, this is off-topic, but we wrote the book, and we wrote it old school. we wrote, here is the problem peripheral,e elements here are some life experiences of immigrants to put a human context about why this is important, and the last chapter was, here are our recommendations. the publishers said, no, you have to put the recommendations in the first chapter, chet thought, why? apparently now in america, in the world of twitter, in the

world of our media, you have to have it all at once. you get to the conclusion first. if you do not have time to read a full book hum of the book will give you set of recommendations in chapter one. >> at the path to citizenship, you would not change anything about that? no, i would not. if we end up with a law that takes 13 years where people have to do the same things that we recommended in the book where you have to learn english, you have to pay a fine, you cannot access federal government transfer payments, and it takes 13 years, i think that satisfies the concerns of having the right balance between the spec for the rule of law and embracing our immigrant heritage. >> you argue for self deportation, do you not? >> no, totally wrong.

secondly, the issue at hand which is grounded in fact is that my guess is a majority of people that hopefully will get legalize status that they will not even apply for citizenship. if the amnesty bill, which it really was in 1986 was an example of that, a majority do not apply. i think it totally miss reads what the aspirations are for a whole lot people. i come here and they want to come out from the shadows and be treated with dignity and respect. they do not necessarily want to be citizens. they want to work hard to pay for the needs of their families. many of them want to go back to their families. i know that sounds crazy, but people do not always leave their countries of origin because they hate them. a leaf because they have no other option. -- they leave because they have no other option. the proposal we made was geared towards trying to reach a consensus at a time in september -- i had no idea or no thought

that we would be as far along as we are -- i do not find either one of those incompatible. they solve the problem either way. that is what we need to do. >> governor barbour, what are your thoughts on the bill right now that is moving through the senate? >> i think it is a good start. i think the fact that it is bipartisan and they have worked hard on it -- i do not think it is what will ultimately pass. i think the senate is likely to amend it some. i think the house -- i hope the house will pass a bill that certainly will not be exactly the same, and it may be quite different in some ways from the senate bill. whether they pass several small bills and engross them for conch -- for conference or the past one big bill, which it is unlikely in the house, then i think we will go to conference with two bills that will have some substantial differences and

will have to be worked out. that is the way the process works. in thiseful that congress we will get a bill, that we will get an immigration reform law that we can put into effect immediately after passage. for me, no immigration reform is the worst outcome. if you are concerned about securing the border, keeping what we've got now and doing nothing will have -- nothing, we will have another wave of illegal immigrants. immigration reform is the critical element needed for border security, to finally enforce visa expiration dates. -40% of the people in this country illegally entered the country legally. they came here on visas. they just stayed. no administration to my knowledge in history has ever

tried to do anything about that. has ever tried to go find them. somethingt to do about that, if you want a secure border, much less if you want the kind of economic growth that our country is capable of, to maintain our leadership role in the world, then immigration reform is essential, and not having it will lead to more bad results. on every front. >> governor bush, i was wondered if you are concerned about the corn and amendment. amendment. it would require 100% monitoring capability. a 90% apprehension rate. that is before granting legal status to the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants. >> i will not comment on the sausage. it is work in progress. isonly comment would be

that i'm encouraged sausage is being made rather than talked about. our democracy does not made when are chirping on the sidelines. it works and people are engaged in good faith to try to find consensus. i would say it key element of border security, obviously controlling the border better is an essential element of it, but creating a legal system of immigration is also a key element of order security. not a theory it is -- the fact is if you make legal immigration easier with less cost, less pain, less risk, than illegal immigration, you will not have as much illegal immigration. our legal immigration system is broken. one of the elements that was controversial in our recommendation that is embraced in the senate bill unlikely in the house bill -- and likely in the hospital is to redefine

narrowed family petition back to it every other country in the world has, something along the lines of a spouse and minor children. whatever the case is, if you narrow it down, you open up the door for economic immigrants. you can create guestworker program worker program that is h1bst, and you can expand visas and create other visas that are economically driven on the high and low end of the income scale. while border security has to be first and foremost simultaneously with that there has to be a system where people -- when you say get in the back of the line, if you are a filipino in the back of the line and not petition by a family member, the back of the line is 165 years -- unless we have a massive change in life science or life expectancy is dramatically changed, that is not a line. creating this system of openness for people having a

chance to come legally i think is critical. >> about chirping -- [laughter] , we need more of the people to come in legally to come here because of merit and work and what they can do for our economy. that is where the need is. i think he is very right on that. i think it is also fair to after the last immigration bill, there are people concerned about, are we serious about border security? if you ask simpson, he will tell you, what was the principal failure? we told them that we would secure the border, and we never did. i'm notderstand -- going to try to get into senator cornyn's--

amendment -- i think it is understandable that this time the american people want have some certainty that we will have border security and we will do better enforcement of visas because last time they took the government at its word. i do not think they are prepared to do that again. only once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me. >> governors, i know this measure is moving to the senate right now, and we expect it to be taken up by the house, but even if immigration reform makes it through the senate, everyone does think it'll be an uphill battle in the house. i i think there is an interesting analysis that came out recently in the cook political report that said while the electorate is growing increasingly diverse, the average republican district is getting whiter and whiter. how can you persuade those house lawmakers to vote for immigration reform, particularly when therir constituents do not want it?

a recent poll found that 60% of legalization opponents said they would not support a candidate for congress who voted in favor of a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants. how do you sell it? >> we have polling all over the place. the polling is sort of like streetcars. if you miss one, there will be another one along in 10 minutes. [laughter] it could be going in a totally different direction. let's take it at face value. those districts are largely rural. those districts have a huge dependency on agriculture. has alture in america huge dependency on immigrant labor. i was talking about california. is a substantial agricultural state. believe it or not, the number one commodity in mississippi is not cotton but chickens. $2.5 billion a year

worth of poultry. if you go to a chicken processing plant anywhere in mississippi, and if you can find somebody on the floor that speaks english, i can give you $100. they are all here for work. they are willing to do nasty, dirty work where every day they come home covered in blood and guts and veins and feet and feathers. >> ok, we got it. [laughter] i'm telling you how bad it is. >> the idea that it is a myth that they are jobs americans will not take -- in mississippi, we have a very advanced corrections program. our roof -- our recidivism rate is about half the natch -- the national average. inmates, when they get to a certain security level, we let them work. they can go to work in the area,

get paid, the state takes the and theyncarceration, get a savings account. one of our institutions is in chicken country. the inmates, they will not stay two days. they would rather be in the penitentiary than work in a chicken plant. that is the literal truth. those congressmen that you are talking about had huge constituencies who are dependent on this labor. a big part of their economy -- they will have those constituents saying to them, on grossman, please vote for immigration reform so we do not have to have people here illegally, so we can get labor that is here legally to build the economy and support the families of your district -- there is going to be a lot of that, and there will be other examples. >> did you have any thoughts? >> most of the polling i see is that there is broad support for

the reforms that are being discussed in congress right now. the implication of the question is that every decision is made purely for political self- interest, and there is probably -- you survive by being cognizant of the fact that you cannot go way out of the mainstream of your district. i think the district is not just as out of whack with what we are doing right now. i haven't seen the poll you brought up, but i was on the other streetcar going the other way i guess. i think there is a broader question. you change the conversation from the question of illegal immigration and you move it to, how do you create an economic strategy of sustained economic growth, and the whole dynamic of the conversation changes. my advice to members of congress -- i gave my humble advice this morning at 7:30 -- change the conversatione restors

as a nation by sustained economic growth? if you can tell me we can do this with an older and older population that is less productive where our fertility rates -- unless you tell me that every one of our kids and grandkids will have four or five kids, you can promise me that, then there is no way that we can have, based on the simple math that haley brought up, of labor output times productivity equaling economic activity that we can grow over a sustained. of time. -- a sustained period of time. that is a winning message in conservative america. >> governor bush, it was conservatives that shut down your brother's own efforts. --2007, >> it wasn't just republicans. that is the wrong premise. a lot of people ran for cover on both sides. , and all a must vote

of a sudden, it stops being a must vote. people got scares. they went from 61 people supporting the bill down to 39 or 40. >> what is different now? as anpeople do see it issue of great opportunity. b, i think both parties realize that we have to do something for political purposes and the policies need to be implemented. -- thei think there is arele, the american people generally, by a matter of two to one, are supportive the initiatives that are being proposed. if you dide in 2006 polling, i do not remember the polling -- i do not know if it was as popular as it is today. >> one minor observation about that -- the american people do

not, are not prepared to accept the low level of economic growth that we have had in recent years. in the last three years, the economy grew at 2.4%, one point eight percent, 2.1%. after the last recession, in the 1980s, an even deeper recession in terms of unemployment, the economy grew 4.5%, 7.4%, four .1%. americans are not willing to accept 2% growth is the new normal. this is part of the equation for getting us back to the kind of growth that we are used to, that we can have, and that our kids and grandkids deserve. >> are you concerned about the heritage foundation report that ,ame out a couple of months ago the study claiming that immigration reform will cost the u.s. $6.3 trillion over the next 60 years? i know you and others have criticized it for not taking

into account the benefits that would come from immigration reform. how do you plan to fight that going forward? it is already being mentioned on the floor. >> of course, everybody knows it is a political document. it was designed to be a political document. there is a reason we do not expect the government to make predictions about spending and taxes for more than 10 years. the idea that we are going to predict 50 years into the with precision is silly. we cannot do that. people know you cannot to that. it is also so obviously a political document that is now starting to be compared to , whicheople's studies have very different results. the heritage foundation has been an ally of mine when i was chairman of the party, governor of mississippi.

they helped us with lots and lots of things. my wife does not agree with me on everything. the fact of the matter is it is a political document. it is not a serious piece of work. you do not fire people who do your top study, your most important political document. the next week, you do not fire the guy who did it. >> yes, you do. >> before i take audience questions, i want to ask one rnc came out with a report saying -- "we must embrace and champion immigration reform. if we do not, our party appeal will continue to shrink." what happens if it does not get

through congress this time? if the republicans are seen as being responsible not passing immigration reform. >> i think the system will be blamed, not one party or another. that is why i am pleased that rather than saying no for principled reasons, but say no to what might be proposed by democrats, the old-school way has been applied, which people of good faith quietly have gone about their business to forge a consensus. now it is on the floor of the senate. it validates the civics books. the process ignored what they had written about how was supposed to work.

the political aspects of this, because of engagement, i think we are in pretty good shape. it would be hard to imagine if republicans in the house passed the bill and you cannot forge a consensus in the conference committee and someone could be blamed politically. there will be efforts to try, but making a good-faith effort with sincerity and believing in the other side's views can have a conversation about it is very helpful. >> the biggest issue that you are bringing up is if it does not pass, the news media has already decided it is the republicans fault. if it fails because of border security, the democrats say that it is a poison pill. the liberal media elite is prepared to say, it is the republicans fault.

there are republicans who want immigration reform as bad as anybody else. to predetermine that if it does not fail, it was the republicans fault, that is something we have to work on. hopefully, we will get a bill passed both houses. if we do not get it, republicans have to make sure that if they try to support a bill they could not get past the cousins and it would not take it or the -- get past because the senate would not take it or the president would not sign it, there is a predisposition. -- that there is say, predisposition to republicans' fault. >> the heritage report is flawed

because -- the heritage foundation, i was on the board and i admire their work. in the forefront of advocating dynamic scoring. to have a report that assumes this constant trendline is flawed and not giving any credit for any of the economic activities that every shoddy shows that immigrants bring to the equation -- every study that shows what immigrants bring to the equation. why do we assume that? it is not part of our history. why do we assume it will be that way because it currently is that way? i would argue that republicans win when we are positive and hopeful and aspirational and we draw people towards our cause will we do that. if we just lay the game to we are for less government -- play the game that we are for less

government, that message is not aspirational. it is not very hopeful. it is not optimistic and we could lose. my guess is the messaging will change and we could garner significant report amongst immigrants from africa, asia, latin america. it has been that way pretty regularly and my guess is that it will continue to be that way. if we do nothing, we will have family reunification, they are not necessarily as aspirational as those if we would've created a strategic approach to this. if you believe this is all about politics, republicans are doomed. i would disagree with that. >> let's go to questions. give us your name and who you

are affiliated with. >> thank you for holding this. i am the congressional correspondent for the hispanic outlook on higher education. i do think the press keeps saying the republicans and hispanics do not like republicans, but hispanic republicans are driving the debate right now. there were five new hispanics selected into congress and they were all republicans. the press has to get off this message that hispanics hate republicans. it is not true. >> keep talking. [laughter]

i have a little thing about that because it makes me mad. immigration was absolutely not an election issue. nobody cared about it. it was number four and five on their list of concerns. why is it suddenly obama's legacy? >> because it will continue to get worse. we have a system that is broken. it does not work. it does not serve the purposes this country needs. there is an appetite now, so go get it. that is my view. when you've got something broke, fix it. >> when it is an opportunity, seize it.

they are more entrepreneurial, they said it more businesses, they buy more homes, they are more family oriented. they work in jobs that are jobs we are missing opportunities to invest back in our own country. every time you make that decision, mumbai and other places benefit. i have a confession to make, i do not live in washington. i live in miami, where half the people in my vibrant beautiful place are born outside the united states. when i finally make it home on a

friday afternoon and i get to spend the night with my lover, it it is my wife who was born outside the united states. on sunday fun days, when i get to be with my granddaughter, her mom was born in canada. that experience is one that we should not ignore. that is the unique american experience at a bio had the blessing to be a -- that i have had the blessing to be able to experience that has a tremendous amount of vitality in my life. it is something no other country has done as well as we have done. why can't that be what the debate is about?

why can it be about the bigger things that make us a better country? did i mention my lover was my wife? [laughter] just in case, there are a bunch of cameras here. memo to file. >> world magazine. --have a question about -- he raul labrador played a key orle role in the house. he said he joined the group in part because democrats made some concessions and agreements that he says they have now gone back on. illegal immigrants, is legalized, would have to cover the cost of their own health insurance. he dropped out of the group.

how do you see the healthcare issue coming down? are you concerned there may be bait and switch negotiating going on in the house? >> i do not know. the concern about the healthcare issue is is there may be some executive authority to waive parts of the affordable care act or something. that is one of the issues. i believe there is a senate amendment to deal with that. it might alleviate the concerns. this is sausage being made and there is a lot of give and take. it seems to be done outside the light. it has been done in a quieter way more than most bills. let's see what it looks like two weeks from now or three weeks are now. let's see what happens after the senate passes a bill.

>> the gentleman right here. >> thank you. i live in maryland and i'm a business owner. as an immigrant, i came here in 1999. i started a business in 2004. i have hired almost 200 security personnel. >> i rest my case. >> i believe the abolition -- immigration of citizens will unfairly affects legal immigration from africa since most people are going to be africans. this is very unfair. it will break our family fabric. i want a comment from you.

>> i think the definition of family ought to be the traditional one in our own country where the only country -- in our own country. we are the only country that has the broadest definition possible. no other country has that. there will be opportunities to have a legal immigration system. we should eliminate the diversity lottery. narrowing the number of people that come through family petitioning creates hundreds of thousands of positions open for people who aspire to come here and work. i am not suggesting narrowing in fact, the proposals may increase the number of legal immigration. we are a big country. detroit would do real well if we started repopulating it with young aspirational people,

people like yourself who have built a business. i do not consider it discriminatory to have a policy that is similar to that of the rest of the world.

. .

they got questions about providing a list of the issues that were important to the organization. they wanted to know what their position was regarding each issue. i am very concerned about the irs admitting targeting conservative groups and this overly invasive line of questioning and requests for information. it is really i believe more like harassment rather than an appropriate inquiry. announced on may 14 that he had now, the attorney general ordered an investigation by the fbi. has the fbi begun that investigation now? >> guess. >> i assume you cannot go into

the details because it is an ongoing investigation. >> correct. ,> now, the irs commissioner steven miller, initially blamed the actions onto rogue employees way out in the cincinnati office. so how could we possibly know anything about that in washington, basically. he acted like nobody in this city knew anything about it or was connected in any way with it. that has become pretty clear at this point that the irs in washington was involved in this. i would like to read a couple of things here relative to a woman he was one of the cincinnati employees and some of the things she has indicated on the record. she said, the tea party cases, the patriot cases, those types of organizations questioned by the irs, they were basically in

a holding pattern of their applications. she indicated that they were basically in a black hole. she had been working on for 11 years at the irs, she said the way the irs handled the tea party to cases was unprecedented. which i think is pretty significant. she says it was micromanaged to death by an irs lawyer who worked in washington. again, no washington connection, of course. but that is where this irs lawyer was here in washington, d.c. back in july 2010, the irs bolooped what was called a lists. it stands for be on the lookout. it instructed -- >> i knew it in the law enforcement context. >> it was used in that context

to send applications from organizations involved with the tea party movement. she told congressional investigators she understood the purpose of the list was to target conservative and republican groups. other political groups did not get handled the same way according to her. ofsa today review -- review tax exemptions shows dozens of liberal groups got exemptions and tea party groups were on hold. subsequently, there was another criteria that came down from d.c. talking about including groups whose issues include government spending, government debt and taxes, and if you are critical of the country or the direction that does -- it is going or the way it is being run. again, these sat in limbo for 27 months. will all these matters be investigated by the fbi, no matter how high up they go? >> i cannot specifically -- i

can specifically assert that to the extent there is any criminal misconduct we will follow the leads and the evidence wherever it takes us. >> thank you. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you, director miller -- mueller, for your service. i think you have raised the standards very high. i appreciate that. anynt to follow-up on response you made to a question mr. conyers gave you. thought the phrase you the american people were theerned about to what end programs, these two programs, are being used. and i think that is absolutely the case. i think that was the case when

we were debating the patriot act and the reauthorization of the. and the concerns that a number of us were raising at that time. to what end would these programs be used? congressman scott has questioned you about some of those ends. what i would like to do is frame this based on what you mentioned in your opening statement. you talk about terrorism, national security, cybersecurity, and you talked about criminal activity in your description of cybersecurity. you said that required a public- private interaction. , they havee things

become more global, i take it. all four of those categories have become more global. so the question i'm raising is, is there a distinction between terrorism, the purposes for which information can be used in these programs for terrorism purposes -- that is why the statutes were put in place. is there a distinction between terrorism and national security? i think terrorism as defined as a threat to national security. in and of itself. does national security nationalor does security include some things outside of terrorism? terrorism is a separate category.

you have individuals. one of the concerns we have in the future -- as a mattert trade of national security? you, onetell hypothetical is a terrorist attack him a cyber terrorist attack on wall street. that is trade. if we disrupt that, that is a matter of national security. >> i think you were right. the public's concern here is what is the overlap between these four categories, and to what extent can this information that is being gathered be used for saying are in the gray area here? i was uncomfortable that we got so preoccupied with terrorism

that we compromised, i thought, personal liberties. but i assumed we got comfortable with that after 9/11. what if you found something in this information, that is gathered, under these two programs, that related more to criminal activity? serious criminal activity. the question is, can that be used, anything you find in these phone dragnets, can it be years in a criminal investigation if if not terrorist related necessarily, could be national security related or cybersecurity related? what is the dividing line

between the use of these things other than an individual agent's discretion, or whatever an individual agent represents in a affidavit to the court? >> let me start by the use of the were dragnets. .- were dragnets >> i did not intend to use it either. i apologize. data gathering. , the statute is fairly specific and it is attributable to terrorism. the traditional, what what would -- what one would understand to be terrorism, al qaeda and its like and other terrorist groups that are specifically mentioned. as i tried to point out before, this program is set up for a very limited purpose in a

limited objective. individualsdentify in the united states using a telephone for terrorist activities. >> is cyber terrorism? >> it can be. but not as distinguished. i do not believe it would be covered in this particular statute. i tried to leave out the possibility that if there were any piece of evidence that was applicable to a homicide or substantial, the only way for that piece to be utilized would be to go back to the court and get the approval of the court to utilize this information in a way that was not covered in the original order. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from alabama, mr. bacchus, for five minutes. >> i want to commend you on your service to our country. let me ask you.

i have been reading about the james rosen case. i find a great deal of confusion over what the justice department and the fbi have done, and what they have not done. you are familiar with the search warrant and the affidavit. in that particular case. >> i am not that familiar. , atre you familiar with the time the search warrant was stephen had already been thetified as the leaker of information. you are aware of that? >> i am not aware of the timing. this was three years ago. >> in 2010, he had already been identified. if you read the affidavit, clearly he had been identified

as the leaker. attorney general holder said he did not know of a prosecution or was not party to a prosecution. if you read the search warrant, i know it talks about mr. rosen as perhaps being a hater or a better or co-conspirator. abettor or co- conspirator. if you read the affidavit, he was clearly encouraging steve classifiedleak information. he was concealing his identity and telling kim to conceal his identity. to thiso, according affidavit, and i take this as -- i know -- i don't of nothing in this affidavit that has been disproved. this disclosure threatened our national security clearly, and

probably or could have cost the life of an intelligence source -- i am korea because not even sure if the person is still alive. ,ow, assuming that what i say assuming the affidavit is correct and james rosen was doing this daily contact with there has beent accusations that the privacy protection act was violated. it protectsthat journalists from being impelled to turn it over to law enforcement any documented the cheerios, including sources, before the information contained in the materials is disseminated. it was disseminated a year before.

i do not think that is valid. it also prevents investigators from searching newsrooms to uncover information or sources that a news organization has assembled. i do not think that applies in this case. i know of no search of any newsroom or any work product. but, it says there is no protection if there is probable cause to believe the person possesses materials or has committed or is committing a crime to which the materials relate, including receipt, possession, or communication of classified material. this affidavit contains 35 pages of very active recruiting of the state department employee, toising him, the reporter, use a fake e-mail. was torch warrant google. theys been said that

should take reasonable -- the government should take reasonable steps to obtain information through alternative theces or other means than reporter. i would think google would be an alternative source. and there is a clear presumption -- there is not now, -- ihere is a presumption would not ask you to read that .ffidavit my point is simply, from reading the affidavit, i would think it is clearly within the right of the government to prosecute this reporter. >> i could tell you two things. one, i briefly reviewed the affidavit when the issue arose. am somewhat familiar

with it. the focus of our investigations are on the person within the government who is leaked the information. he is the locus of our investigation. given the issues that have been raised, it is appropriate to go back and look at the statute that was applied to the search warrant, and to the protocols that have been established in our exercise of investigation ability when it comes to this tension between the first amendment on the one hand and -- >> to gentleman's time has expired. >> there was no prosecution. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, ms. lofgren or he >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. director, for your years of service to our country. i remember so well seeing you right after 9/11. you had been on the job a

handful of days and you have certainly served our country well and honorably. i thank you for that. ono, following up congressman baucus' questions, i do have concerns about our posture relative to the press. issueed to talk about the of the phone numbers for the associated press reporters. it has, the department of justice recently let ap now that it has subpoenaed the records for 20 phone numbers as part of a leak investigation. the ap had said approximately 100 of its reporters use these phones on a regular basis. the ap'se phones was primary number in the house of

rep or -- representatives press gallery. used by many employers -- reporters, not just the ap. , not onlys concerns about the first amendment, but also about separation of powers. certainly it is likely that many of the calls made by these phones were with congressional staff or members of congress, and likely were irrelevant to the leak case. but certainly they raise issues of speech and debate. , in thedering department of justice the attorney general has to personally sign off on subpoenas for reporters. in this case, since the attorney general recused himself, the deputy attorney general apparently signed off. who at the fbi needs to sign off on a subpoena request like this before it goes over to the justice department? is that you?

>> no. it is at the assistant director level. i have to get back specifically to you, but depending on the context and what is ordered it would be the assistant director in charge of the particular division doing that. it islly it is this -- the assistant director. >> in a case like this, would there be at this level consideration of the implications for chilling first amendment rights? would there also be an analysis of the speech and debate implications, the separation of power? >> i think that would be raised. certainly it is a leak investigation. any leak investigation, you are in an environment where there are competing tensions. anytime time you come across anything that implicates the legislature and congress in some way, that sets up a red flag that requires additional scrutiny and decisions as to who or how the investigation goes. then you absolutely want to have

a united states attorney handling the case -- case. >> so we would assume in the case that the department of justice and fbi decided it was ok if members of congress in the legislative branch, where the subject of your and creepy because of the location. that in and ofe itself, the fact there is this one telephone number, would be sufficient to raise a flag of ok, we will get conversations across this line. it is not across the line. not that at all. records, notst for conversations themselves. investigating leaks of classified information, certainly that is a worrisome issue. but why did you think it was necessary to seek records for so many telephones used by so many reporters in the ap case

obviously many of the records under the subpoena would not have relevance to the leak investigation. does the fbi have a process for minimizing the collection of a relevant records from the subpoena? or did all the data get uploaded to fbi databases regardless of relevance? adapting. let me say, adapting special that thes to assure records are protected. in terms of the numbers, i would have to leave that to the department of justice. ofis in the midst investigation still. i will tell you, i do believe there was substantial effort made to minimize the request. >> let me close with this. in order to get a subpoena for the records of the reporters,

they would have to be implicated in this leak investigation. have to beld implicated? >> the reporters. >> is it the fbi practice to consider reporters, editors, and those who print stories about classified information as criminals? how many times since you have been director has the fbi served them with search warrant 's alleging they are criminals? >> the time is expired by the general can reply. >> we do not consider that category as criminals in any way, shape, or form. our focus is on identifying the individual has -- who has the secret and to whom the individual is given secret. -- secrets. it is to identify contact between the person leaking materials and the person publishing materials. if you go to court, you have to show the material is leaked went to a particular person for

publication. but the pet -- focus is on the person doing the leaking. the last part, i cannot recall. >> would you get back to us on that? >> yes, ma'am. >> mr. issa is recognized. >> i will yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from alabama. >> let me say i think what happened with the ap is outrageous. i wasn't he saying there is a totally different dynamic. >> director, you used a term just now. you said we are in the process in theou said, we are present tense. it is fair to characterize -- you are saying we are in the process of protecting that which has not been previously protected. in other words, since you use the present tense i am assuming verybefore this became public, protections that will be in effect in the future were not in fact -- in effect. >> we have a protection of all

our investigations. some are protected more than others. >> i want to hold you to the explicit word. you said in the present tense. is it fair, yes or no, fair for me to assume there are additional efforts now underway that will be implement it? >> yes. >> thank you. at sometime in in the past, was of anrosen a subject investigation as to criminal activity? >> not to my knowledge. >> is he now a subject -- suspect in a criminal investigation? ? >> not my knowledge. >> thank you. any othernter document naming him as a suspect in a criminal investigation -- rant naming him as a suspect in a criminal investigation would be false. >> i do not believe there is such a document out there. >> it would be a false statement? >> i think i know what you're

going. >> you get me? >> we are not all the way there. will you say the conduct described in a particular entity which could or could not be subject to ultimately a prosecution. >> it is fair to say he was not a suspect. we will let the words of some documents speak for itself. today, are you using all necessary and available resources to apprehend those people responsible for the murders in benghazi? >> yes. are theur knowledge, cia, nsa, and appropriate overseas assets used to find those responsible and bring them to justice? >> yes. how ityou explain to us could be that we have got videos of them, we have got

knowledge of who many of these people are, in some cases by name, and yet we have not found one of them in libya or some other country? isn't that unusual, to have such a cold record? >> let me explain in a couple ways. yes, it is unusual to have such a cold record, as i articulated before. this is a unique situation. we had embassy attacks before and colleagues in law enforcement and the government helping us. there is no government to help us in libya. we do not have colleagues we can go to. it is unique. >> but you have had access to people there. you have the ability to get into think i is he is absolutely necessary, you were agents on our behalf? >> if absolutely necessary, but it is a very hostile territory. nonetheless, we have video and something there to work with. i can tell you we have been working with that. whoe obviously, individuals

may have participated, whether we have video or otherwise, we are pursuing. >> ok. two more quick questions. in your lifetime of law enforcement, is it a practice ,ou believe is appropriate to when you have information and transcripts and other collected data, to selectively make some of it available in order to facilitate both public and witness cooperation? in other words, do you put out certain information and, --versely, retain certain of information? you do not put out an entire transcript of deposition, all the evidence you have, you put some of it out as a matter of course in investigations to get people pointed, for example. you put a picture of somebody out in the case of benghazi, yet you are retaining, i am sure, some information that only you know. a newere making use of

media on facebook and the like. in the course of our investigation in benghazi. gone are website, you will find stills from the videos. >> selectively pick. others were retained. >> because we want people to come forward. we did the same thing in boston, the way we were able to identify those responsible there. it was to focus in identifying them. .ublicizing their pictures >> lastly, the people responsible for benghazi to our knowledge are not u.s. persons. therefore, if you knew the location of them, wouldn't they be eligible for a presidential order of a drone strike, no matter what country they were in? >> the time has expired. >> others are more familiar with the ins and outs of the regimes for undertaking subjectivity. >> but your knowledge it would be consistent with other drone strikes ordered by the president? >> i am not that familiar with

drone strikes. i would have to try to defer from answering that particular question on lack of knowledge and legal ability as well. >> with the chairman's indulgence for 10 seconds, director, i want to thank you for your long years of service and all you have done for america. this is always a tough place to come, but you are always welcome. >> thank you. >> thank you. , ms.entleman from texas jackson lee, is recognized for five minutes. >> let me start by saying director, we have interacted with each other for the past 11 years and i want to thank you for your service. you are particularly one that i admire, having graduated from the university of virginia school of law. you are obviously a very wise man. so, a fellow alum, let me thank you. i know we will show no bias this morning. but i want to thank you for your service. thatf the points

seemingly has not penetrated into this committee is the enormous hit the fbi will take on sequestration. .ou mentioned $550 million $700 million in 2014. that is going to be somewhat devastating, is that not correct? >> yes. >> the fbi has had a vigorous influence on the civil rights investigations. yesterday was the 50th anniversary of the death of megan evans. would that impact a variety of responsibilities the fbi has, including civil rights enforcement? >> i cannot go that far because we getme tell you, when faced with cuts, we prioritize. we would not cut counterterrorism, we would not cut counterintelligence. we would not cut ciber. the two principal criminal

programs of public corruption and civil rights. , but you would be tight you would try to do it. you would be tight in other areas. >> as we go down the priorities, we will be cutting. the support you get in those investigations would be cut. >> that is very important. that me ask you about lot and -- gun legislation. you're a strong advocate of the constitution and bill of rights. universal background check requiring people to store their guns, would that seemingly infringe on the second amendment? >> the one thing i am not is a constitutional lawyer. i the thrust of the question. -- understand the thrust of the question. >> would good laws help make us safer? >> we can always do more. >> thank you very much. let me move to the question of e-mails and the various public discussions which i think -- do you think we could have a significant release of

significant section 501 decision's that could be declassified in a manner consistent with the protection of national security intelligence sources and methods? meaning, the decisions of the fisa court be declassified, keeping in mind, under the ,estraint of national security classified intelligence sources, etc.? would that occur? >> i have to defer to the department of justice. protocolses to the set up not just by the department of justice, but by the fisa court as well. >> the opinions of the court disclosing them, you as an investigator protecting other classified -- it would not be open to the public and reasonable? >> i think in those opinions, they are matters that absolutely

should remain classified. >> if they would keep that classified, others could be released? >> i do not know that for a fact. >> with respect to section 501, it speaks to tangible things that are part of the investigation. the thing section 501, that is, the issue of application of order investigation, could be narrowed? >> i am not what you are talking about. >> 501, section 215. >whether or not that can be narrowed a little bit from its broadness, which is how we got to where we are today? >> i think there can be a discussion as to the scope of 215. understanding the the purpose of it and also the impact on privacy. >> let me ask these two quick questions. do you think what we have done over the past, what we have been disclosed, is so broad that we byermine what we need to do

not narrowly focusing? lastly, with respect to the boston marathon case, i want to quickly get to that. have you determined why the dots were not connected as they looked at the two perpetrators' travel overseas? have you found the smoking gun on that issue? can you go first to the question of narrowing the brought trawling and still get to where you need to go? >> i would not call that brought trawling. to the extent that you narrow it, you narrow the dots that are available. you will narrow the dots that are available. maybe that. that prevents the next boston case. on the boston case, i think we did a very thorough job when it came to our attention. i do think there could have been a better exchange of information, particularly by the russians earlier on. that may have helped. there were other things in terms of alerting the travel that we

are fixing. but even if that had been fixed prior to the boston bombing, i do not think it would have stopped it. but going back to the point, yes you can narrow, yes you can drive balance, but you will minimize the dots. >> thank you. i yield back. thank you for your service. >> the gentleman from virginia, , isfor -- thorpe recognized. >> i went to join the chorus of those, do you for your service. so many americans will not thank you because they do not know the cap them from. we thank you for that. i gave a copy of the application for a search warrant to your staff. i think they have it to present to you. for the record, it is case one- 10-mj-a.k.a. document 20. with the chairman's commission, i would ask that be made part

of the record. >> without objection, so ordered. mr. director, is it not true that the standard for arresting an individual for committing a crime and the standard for charging an individual for committing a crime are both probable cause? >> yes. thef indeed that is standard for arresting an individual and charging them with a crime, in this application for a search warrant we presented to you and you have been questioned about several times, your special agent certifies in this application that there is probable cause to believe the individual involved here, james rosen, had committed or is committing a crime. yet your testimony, as i understand it, there was no potential for prosecution. my question to you today, if you have an individual you know has reached the standard for arrest, the standard for charging with a crime, and one

of your agents has attested to that, how can you say what standards the department has that says there is no potential that that individual will be prosecuted? >> a number of occasions where we may have probable cause or facts that would purport to establish probable cause to charge someone with that and we do not -- >> i understand that. how do you say, before you even get the evidence, that you have reached that standard to charge there ishow do you say no potential that you will prosecute this individual when you have not even obtain the evidence to know the extent of that crime? >> we include search warrant's and cooperators. >> in the case of mr. rosen, can you tell us if he was cooperating or if there is any guide line with the department? >> that was not my response. your question before, there are many occasions -- >> in this occasion with mr.

rosen. >> there are many occasions where you have probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime and have no intention of prosecuting. >> i know that. in this case, can you tell us what guidelines would allow the department, that there was no test of that potential to yourcute mr. rosen if agent had said you had probable cause to charge him and arrest them. and you had not gotten the results in the search warrant yet? >> i'm not sure i understand the question. >> that the re-freezing be very specific. you have stated there was no potential for prosecution for mr. rosen. a search warrant was issued at the time. your agent attested to the fact that there was probable cause standards to arresting and charging, yet your statement is that there was no potential for prosecution of that time for mr. rosen. my question is, on what basis do you say there was not even the potential?

>> i would go back and look at my answer. i am not sure he did it in that way. >> would you say there was at least a potential for prosecution? >> i will not say that because i'm not the prosecutor on the case. those decisions are being made by -- >> i know they will ultimately be made, but you cannot stay today there was no potential for prosecution, can you? >> i'm not sure i stated one way or the other. >> let me ask you this question. since the president has been in office, we had a 40% increase in gang membership in the country. we know 48% of violent crimes are committed by gangs in most jurisdictions. 90% in some states, including the president's home state of illinois. can you tell us what has been the cause of the uptick in gang activity of almost 40% since the president has been in office? >> at the same time you talk about uptake in gang activity, and it has grown, i do not think there is any person who could say there is anyone cause of an

increase in gang activity. it goes to a number of factors. by the same token, there has been a substantial, large reduction in violent crime throughout the country. , there is ancago article you are familiar with. the reduction of homicides in chicago this year. consequently, on the one hand you of certain communities within uptake in gang violence. but you also have a number of communities who have effectively address the gang violence with new ways of community policing. >> thank you. but the increase has been 40%. with that, i yield back. >> the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. mueller, i had the opportunity to go to russia a couple weeks ago. the deputy director met with us

and the head of counterintelligence. they said they sent a memo to you, i believe it was the fbi, i presume you got it, in 2011 tsarnaevs, that they were radicalized and they were fearful they would be some threat to us or russia. they wanted information about when they would return. they thought there were some flaws that may be impeded your ability to do a complete study or carry a study for a longer time. i would like to ask you this. first, did you get that paper from the fsb about the tsarnaevs? why cannot follow up further? is there legislation that needs to be passed to allow you to do that that would keep within the rights of american citizens? three, are there relations between the fbi and the fsb improved to where we can share intelligence to work against the threat of radical islam and

terrorism in both our countries? >> in response to number one, we did get information through her -- our-- are the gate legate in moscow. referenceough the checks and went to the community college were he had spent time. we interviewed the parents and finally interviewed tamerlan himself. after all those efforts we did not find indication he was involved with terrorism, nor did we find predication for further investigative efforts such as a wiretap or what have you. the extent ofed that investigation back to the russians and asked for any additional material they had that would assist us in furthering additional investigation. after three requests, we got no

response from them. think, all the investigation that could've been done. any additional information about time, i do not believe, would have turned up more evidence of his ultimate radicalization. finally, in terms of the fsb, we had a chilling period with the fsb. you met with the general several weeks after boston. they have been helpful to our investigation. we hope we can continue to exchange information to prevent further terrorist attacks, particularly in the united states. >> why was there not an ability to let them know he returned to dagestan? >> we did not pick that up. when he got off the plane, there were several reasons -- >> what are the reasons? the impression i got is this is a big lead, but they said if you had followed up, if they

had known he was coming back to dagestan, possibly the boston marathon bombing would not have occurred. i presume that means they would him, which would have been great. >> the warning went to the task force. not the warning. the fact of his having left went to the task force. for a variety of reasons, not the least of which it was closed some time ago, that particular indication he was on his way back to russia did not get to us. that there something needs to be corrected or has been corrected? is there a law that needs to be changed? >> it does not require a lot. it requires a correction to procedures, which we have done to assure that every such notice has a recorded record and cannot be done informally. >> i am satisfied. thank you. let me ask you about this other man who was killed in florida.

apparently was one of the guys who killed the three marijuana -- killed the three marijuana guys in massachusetts. another fellow who was a friend of tamerlan's in florida being investigated by fbi agents and they killed him. you are member that, don't you? >> i would say that was a .esponse to a threat >> at first the reports were there was a knife or something and later they said there was no weapon. >> that was still under investigation. >> how did you get knowledge of him and his involvement in the crime? was it through the fsb, or your own investigation? there were a number theays, including -- program under scrutiny today.

-- ou mean >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> is a 215? that particular program as well. i will tell you that we came upon him in a variety of ways. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, is recognized. >> thank you. thanks for your testimony and your service. .ollowing up on the question it was not clear to me. was the initial information on the gentleman referred to as tadishev, was that from the russians? >> you are saying -- >> you said there were a variety of sources that brought you to him. >> the individual from florida? >> who was murdered. killed, i mean. >> it came from several leads

we were following here domestically. >> was there an initial leave it came from the russians? >> i do not recall. it may have been, but i cannot recall that there was, that he had been identified by the russians. >> are you aware of a letter in the fsb dated march 4, 2011? >> yes. >> was that letter initiated by the russians, by the -- >> yes. >> the letter sat in the file for a well. >> it was acted on very quickly afterwards. >> did you have domestic tamerlan prior to that? works prior to the date? i believe so. let me say, his name had,. in two other cases, those two other cases the individuals had their cases closed. one or two persons away.

>> it is reasonable that the letter refocus to the fbi on tamerlan. >> absolutely. >> you are aware of a letter from the fsb dated april 2, 2013? >> yes. >> of those letters, are they classified? >> i am not certain what their classification level is. >> if i were to ask you to take a look at both letters and consider if they are classified, to release them. the subject matter of that information within it, i think we would agree it is something that would be useful for the american people be aware of. for me, i was struck by the amount of domestic information the russians had an activity inside the unit is it's on -- united states on tamerlan tsarnaev. is it also possible to reconstruct, going backward to the timeline, a place or places

where there might have been an intervention that could have prevented the boston bombing, knowing what we knew at the time? >> every time we have an incident like this we go back and scrub it hard. i indicated one area, that is notification of the subject traveling should have been documented. whatever action was taken as a result should have been documented. but looking back at it, i do believe that radicalization was substantial during the time he was in russia. what i do not believe he was on the radar screen of the russian authorities. >> that is also my understanding. as far as the radicalization the took place, do you see that as a long process that started when he was younger and was a product of his home country? or how do you view the radicalization? >> the best you can say is

maybe in fits and starts. >> i think that is fair. the security, though, when we had people coming in from the north caucasus region, persons who come from say a profile that would fit persons of interest from nations of interest, do we do inquiries with the russians or any other country to do background checks on those individuals that might be seeking asylum in the united data come from those areas? >> you would have to turn to dhs in terms of what they consider evaluating asylum. -- >>. they subcontract that to you? do the background checks? >> i do not think they contract us. they run records checks through us to see what derogatory material you ma we may have on someone seeking asylum. >> are you aware of inquiries to give advice on anyone seeking

asylum, which is how tamerlan got here? >> i cannot speak to what the fsb does in all cases. but if they have a person they believe to be a terrorist, i would say they give is that information and ask for assistance from us to investigate. ask a direct question of the second-in- command at fs be -- he would say it never happened, but other people on the panel seems to think there was an inquiry 10 years ago. his response was the inquiries are naiil. i would suggest we need to take a good look at how we do back rent checks on people coming from nations of interest to like we are persons of interest to tighten up our security. that was a window. there might be hundreds, perhaps more than hundreds that come through a window like that. i thank you for your service and yield back the balance of our time. >> the time has expired.

the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, for five minutes. >> thank you. r, thank you for your many years of exemplary service to the nation. this will probably be our last time seeing you before this particular committee. . want to do that i wanted to give you that. , will also agree with you that as terrorism both foreign and ourstic changes and adapts, law enforcement capabilities have to do the same. so, if data collection will help in our personal liberties, then that is a discussion we should have. ,nd if we do not have security then our civil liberties are definitely threatened.

i know everyone can agree with that. this is an issue unlike those that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are ,ooking for out in the backyard benghazi, irs, the rosen subpoena. we can deal with those things. but there are some issues right at the front door, knocking loudly. i think the loudest knock is coming from data collection and secrecy in government. my questions will be regarding that. why is it necessary for data , internal domestic data collection, to be a secret? why is it that that program has to be a secret? i disagree with the notion that public knowledge of those programs can undermine our

ability to respond to a terrorist threat. i also want to applaud the work of companies like google that work very hard to make government legal requests as transparent as possible. this week, google requested permission from you and the attorney general to publish aggregate numbers of national security requests, including fisa disclosures, as part of the report. , kind't the publication of like metadata, wouldn't that better serve the conversation on civil liberties and national security than keeping americans -- it dark as that teams seems to break down the trust we have for government?

i'm concerned we have too much classified information and undisturbed,- and perplexed about who decides what should be classified and how we go about on classifying things. i know that as a couple of questions i will give you a chance to respond. >> i do think there is quite obviously a tension between the t to certainndance questions. there are occasions where things are over classified. when it comes to how we handle communications and older iterations, particularly in the day and age when you have any number of ways to communicate, whether it be e-mail, chat, a variety of alternate ways of communicating, to the extent that those associated with

terrorist groups or those ,ssociated with the chinese iranians, and others. to the extent that they have information as to how we operate and identifying how we may use those programs -- >> the programs themselves, why is it that the broad disclosure that yes, americans, we are collecting metadata from your phone records and this is why we are doing that. explaining the in -- not explaining the intricacies of what you are doing. not talking about any specific programs or operations -- excuse me, no specific operations or operatives, those kinds of things. adjust the existence of the program. americans need to know what is being done and why. >> all i would say is there is a balance. in the encourage you

classified briefings to ask that question. >> i have. i have never gotten a satisfactory answer. >> whenever there are disclosures like this, we see through intercepted communications, we see exactly what those individuals are , tog, the terrorists -- ge their communication >> the time it's been expired. >> there will always be the evocation what we are doing. thehe chair recognizes gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you, director. being -- about your the last time i did it a few years ago. on what ourllow-up friend mr. johnson was talking about. the overclassification issue. it does seem to be a problem. certainly an issue. there is an article today entitled obama snooping

, missed boston bombers. i was not aware. i went to the fbi website. i was not aware of the sensitive operations review committee. i wanted to find out what it was. apparently, if something involves things like news media or religious or domestic lyrical organizations, things like that, then it has to go before the sensitive operations review committee in order to be approved. here is the information on the data, if it is a political organization like a tea party or a religious organization like whichlical christians, the department of homeland security is so afraid of, or a mosque, apparently you have to get approval here. we are the new and have gone seemed ridiculous to me and michele bachmann and lynn westmoreland that the

material we were reviewing her that purged by subject matter experts was classified. it would seem that if you are trying to make the islamists feel better about training materials, you would want them to see what they were removed. the curious -- why are subject matter experts via the i go through all the training material and purge anything that might be offensive to an islamist, why was that needing to be classified? i would think they would be heroes in the islamic world for getting this stuff out. why was that classified? >> we went through a thorough review. i think you have been fully briefed on it.